I appreciate your comments. I left in the passionate verbiage from the report in order to convey the feelings behind the report. In my haste, I did not make it clear that these are the sentiments of the ETC Group.

I have amended the content of the article above to try to make the source of the opinion clear.

Ed.

“Such a gene patent grab”, “concentrate corporate power”. To the extent that ten competing companies are being awarded patents, this can hardly warrant the implication of monopolization.

“Inhibit independent research”. No independent research is squelched, only dependent research. The fact that there are multiple competing technologies suggests that the patents are not forestalling alternative approaches. Disclosures by inventors in their applications are readily assimilated by their competing peers.

“Further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds”. In U.S. patent litigation, courts have not found such a right, particularly when compared to the right of patent owners to exclude others from making, using, or selling their inventions. This is the incentive for disclosure, which has been upheld when not anticompetitive.

The system is acting as it should, attracting investment where it is needed. Having worked in the chemical process industry for 15 years as a Ph.D. chemical engineer prior to getting my J.D., I know that the R&D resources of these large companies would not be marshalled unless there was some prospect of getting an adequate return on their investments.

If we place a class of patents off limits, there will be little R&D done by industry. Do we really want to remove these valuable resources from the table when we face such a major problem?